[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070311183709.GB19601@mellanox.co.il>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:37:09 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...lanox.co.il>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org,
Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>
Subject: Re: SATA resume slowness, e1000 MSI warning
> Quoting Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>:
> Subject: Re: SATA resume slowness, e1000 MSI warning
>
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...lanox.co.il> writes:
>
> >> Rumor has it that some pci devices can't tolerate < 32bit accesses.
> >> Although I have never met one.
> >
> > hopefully not bridge devices?
> >
> >> The two factors together suggest that
> >> for generic code it probably makes sense to operate on 32bit
> >> quantities, and just to ignore the read-only portion.
> >
> > The code for regular devices seems to use 16-bit accesses, so
> > I think it's best to stay consistent. Or do you want to change this too?
>
> If we are stomping rare probabilities we might as well change that too.
> The code to save pci-x state is relatively recent. So it probably just
> hasn't met a problem device yet (assuming they exist).
OK I guess. I gather we assume writing read-only registers has no side effects?
Are there rumors circulating wrt to these?
--
MST
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists